What I read
The BBC News report "German rappers anti-Semitism lyrics probe dropped" (2018) says that although the outrage from groups throughout Germany in response to the German music industry giving it to two rap singers led to a music award being abolished, German justice officials have decided not to prosecute the two singers for offensive lyrics about Jews. The prosecutor's office explains that although the words of rap songs might often be rude, sexist, and anti-gay as well as offensive for other reasons, the German constitution's protection of free speech means that those hated ideas must also be protected by the rule of law, even though Holocaust denial is a criminal offence under German law.
Before I could write this 111 word summary, I had to read my chosen source three times, thinking carefully about what was important enough to include. Then I had to spend more time working out how to combine those main ideas into my two summary sentences. This took me about 30 minutes, or perhaps a little longer (I didn't time it exactly). I then reread the source again to make sure that every idea in the summary was in the source.
Before I could write this 111 word summary, I had to read my chosen source three times, thinking carefully about what was important enough to include. Then I had to spend more time working out how to combine those main ideas into my two summary sentences. This took me about 30 minutes, or perhaps a little longer (I didn't time it exactly). I then reread the source again to make sure that every idea in the summary was in the source.
___________________________________
My response
Although I don't think it goes far enough, I agree with German rule of law that protects free speech, even when that speech is disgusting to many people. I think that the words to the the songs by the two singers, known as Echo, are offensive. They compare their muscular bodies to the starved bodies of Jews who were killed by the authoritarian, rule loving Nazis, and they seem to say that another Holocaust would be a good thing. The Nazis, who were democratically elected before becoming dictators, were popular with the German people because they said that the rule of law must be followed, and they were very strict as they used the rule of law they made up to murder millions of Jews, gays, black people and gypsies before and during World War 2. The Nazis show us very clearly that the rule of law is often morally corrupt: all such dictatorships, however popular, are morally bad.
Getting back to my point, I also think that democratic law should protect opinions that are certainly false. This is what I disagree with in current German rule of law. It does protect the right to express opinions that are deeply offensive, such as homophobic, anti-woman, and religious prejudice, which I also think are false opinions, but it does not allow people who truly believe that the Nazis did not murder millions of people following their evil laws and popular policies to say that. In fact, on a couple of occasions, German and Austrian academics have been imprisoned or forced into exile for making such statements. I think that a better response, the democratic response that respects good morals, is to allow such false and ugly statements to be made, and then to prove them to be wrong.
Unlike the idea that democracy means majority rule, I think the correct understanding of democracy is that all citizens have an equal right to a voice in deciding the form or their society, its institutions and its government, and this means that even the sickest, most disgusting ideas have to be allowed, pornography for example, but we don't have to agree with or listen to the filth that some people vomit out into our society.
I timed this response as I wrote. It took me exactly 13:09 minutes to write, although I had spent a few minutes thinking about it before I started writing. In fact, after writing the short summary paragraph, which took me a lot longer, I then saved this blog post and thought about my response here while I had my morning shower. I usually like to do this. I think my response is better when I leave myself a bit of time for my brain to work on it.
Getting back to my point, I also think that democratic law should protect opinions that are certainly false. This is what I disagree with in current German rule of law. It does protect the right to express opinions that are deeply offensive, such as homophobic, anti-woman, and religious prejudice, which I also think are false opinions, but it does not allow people who truly believe that the Nazis did not murder millions of people following their evil laws and popular policies to say that. In fact, on a couple of occasions, German and Austrian academics have been imprisoned or forced into exile for making such statements. I think that a better response, the democratic response that respects good morals, is to allow such false and ugly statements to be made, and then to prove them to be wrong.
Unlike the idea that democracy means majority rule, I think the correct understanding of democracy is that all citizens have an equal right to a voice in deciding the form or their society, its institutions and its government, and this means that even the sickest, most disgusting ideas have to be allowed, pornography for example, but we don't have to agree with or listen to the filth that some people vomit out into our society.
I timed this response as I wrote. It took me exactly 13:09 minutes to write, although I had spent a few minutes thinking about it before I started writing. In fact, after writing the short summary paragraph, which took me a lot longer, I then saved this blog post and thought about my response here while I had my morning shower. I usually like to do this. I think my response is better when I leave myself a bit of time for my brain to work on it.
___________________________________
My question
Do you agree with German law? Should ideas that are offensive to a majority of people in a culture be protected by the rule of law?
Note that this is two sentences, but it's only one question.
Note that this is two sentences, but it's only one question.
___________________________________
Reference
- German rappers anti-Semitism lyrics probe dropped. (2018, June 16). Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44506568
Personally, I think that rule of law is the concept that laws have to be complied by all of the people. However, the laws should be justifiable enough for majority of people in that society to obey, rather than just a law which is legislated by the authoritarian and is not socially acceptable. Thus, I do not agree with the German constitution’s protection of free speech because it permits one to offend another which I do not think that that law is justifiable enough to be abided by any persons. Consequently, I do not agree if the ideas that are offensive to most people in the community be protected under the law which thwarts the real concept of rule of law.
ReplyDeleteI think that the law in Germany was made by democratic means and reflects the will of the German people under its laws. Do you think it doesn't?
DeleteThe German constitution was approved by the German people and as in every country with a constitution, that is the supreme law on which all other law and legal institutions depend for their legality.
I don't think the law should prohibit people from speaking their mind. Though those filthy words could be offensive and hurtful, people have to learn that they don't have control over everything and cannot demand everything to be exactly what they would like it to be.
ReplyDeleteImagine a society with the rule of not expressing offensive ideas, not only those with plenty of bad thoughts and words to spit out, but also you as an average man have to worry about everything coming out of your mouth. That's not easy to live.
Since rules are for people to be in order so that it is easy for authorities to keep the society peaceful, once it is a rule, law enforcers have to do everything they can to maintain it. These people must be extremely busy if there is such a rule. Also, it might be controversial to how rude it would be against the rule.
So I still agree with the German law of free speech. At least, when those bad things can be mentioned, people will be reminded of what happened and what is the lesson learned.
Freedom of speech is one of the principles which supports human freedom and right of an individual or a community. People should have a right to express their own opinions, thoughts and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship or law enforcement. Thus, I don't agree with the rule of law to protect or prohibit an offensive speech and idea. I also agree with you that we don't have to agree with or listen to the filth and offensive speech. We can choose what we would like to listen and to follow.
ReplyDeleteI am convinced that people have the rights to express what they believe even if that belief is totally different from what the whole world believes. However, what people express, whether through the writings, the songs, or the speech, must be neither physically nor mentally harmful to other people. No one, including those who are not alive anymore, shall be disrespected. So, answering the first question, I am afraid I can not agree with the German Law. There should be some limitations at least.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering what you mean by "disrespectful." Is it disrespectful to say that someone was a bad person? That they committed evil acts? That they caused much suffering? For example, should we be banned from saying that the Catholic Popes who burned women as witches were evil?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have listened to a podcast from NPR: Rap on Trial: How An Aspiring Musician's Words Led To Prison Time. The episode is about Olutosin Oduwole who was found guilty of attempting to make a terrorist threat in the United State, and it reminds me of the controversial issue of these two German rappers Kollegah and Farid Bang. In Olutosin’s case, his rap lyrics were used as evidence in criminal trials, and he was given a five-year prison sentence. Although it is unarguable that offensive words should not be protected by law, I agree with German court that Kollegah and Farid Bang should not be in jail because of their rap lyrics are about the Holocaust.
ReplyDeleteI understand that there are certain concerns about such anti-semitism over rap lyric from Kollegah and Farid Bang would promote hatred or violation towards a religion or races. However, I think it is our jobs to decide whether or not we should be violated as the offensive messages were communicated to us Rap music is associated with the police and the criminal justice system. The origin of gangsta rap has developed in order to challenge the police and government in lyrics and at concerts. In the case of Olutosin, his rap lyrics were considered as a confession on committing a crime than art. I think that it is injustice to catch somebody into prison because of his art.
Recourse: https://npr.org/2018/05/07/608161616/rap-on-trial-how-an-aspiring-musicians-words-led-to-prison-time
I agree with German law. I think that the appearance of a rule may have two sides. But this rule must be more positive than negative, such as the German law. Even though, I'm not living in a freedom of speech country. So I think how important it is protect different kinds of speeches. In my country, people can freedom to talk about a social Issues. But DON'T touch on political issues. As we all know, China is one of the countries in the world that restricts the use of the Internet. We can't use Facebook, Line, even Google's all servers. The information is not shared, we can only see what the government wants us to see. People maintain a high degree of consistency. For example, the question of the re-election of the country’s chairman passed more than 99% of the votes. I do not like to discuss the national conditions of my country, but I hope it will be better. Everyone is more equal, they can have different voices, listen to different voices, and distinguish between right and wrong. I think this is the most basic right of a country’s citizens.We need freedom of speech. I used Google Translate to write, because this answer is too difficult for me, and I can't express it correctly in English.
ReplyDeleteNa, makes a point that seems important to me: if people cannot speak freely on a topic, then they cannnot have well-informed, solid opinions on that topic because they have not been able to consider opposing opinions and arguments. When only one side can legally be presented, the ignorance that enforces makes all lawful opinion worthless. This might be acceptable to dictators who need to deceive the people they rule over, but it cannot be acceptable to people who value truth, honesty or critical thinking about important issues. We might, for example, be 100% certain that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews according to the rule of popular law, but unless that opinion can be argued against and prove itself true, it might in fact be false — for 2,000, every educated person in the Western world was certain that the sun went around the Earth, and it was illegal to say otherwise because the Christian faith demanded believe in that theory. It was still always false as Copernicus and Galileo broke the law to prove.
DeleteI think a healthy debate can lead to a desirable social solution. One way to have healthy debates is to allow people to share their different ideas so it’s vital for the law to protect the right to express opinions, even when the opinions are offensive to the majority.
ReplyDeleteThere is a big controversial debate topic in Thailand about death penalty recently and the majority agrees with the law. Imagine the Government of Thailand forbids the minority from expressing its opinion, the death penalty may not be discussed and we may have to use the execution by firing squad like 15 years ago that is more violent than the execution by lethal injection.
So I agree with the German law of free speech because it does not protect only the filthy opinions but also the valuable ones.